Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 and to outline some of my reasons for supporting it and rejecting the amendments which are proposed by the member for Bass, which are clearly designed purely to prevent the bill’s passage when it returns to the Senate, if amended.

In considering the issues surrounding this legislation, I thought back to the way in which advances in knowledge have been greeted in the past, particularly medical knowledge but also others. In many cases when advances have been made they have been greeted with hostility and opposition on the basis of a range of ill-informed opinions. I believe that this will be the case with the technology being proposed in this legislation. Its opponents have mounted a range of arguments but, in my view, in a few years time we will look back on this debate and know that we did the right thing in supporting this bill.

Let us not forget that when astronomers worked out that the world was round, many of them were decried. When the Wright brothers took to the air, there was deep suspicion in some quarters of this new technology and some believed that it was against God’s will for people to fly. In terms of medical science, when anaesthetics were used for the first time in childbirth, many in the scientific and religious worlds were highly critical. Debate raged in medical and religious circles and spread throughout the broader community.

At the time it was reported that a Dr Petrie from Liverpool considered the use of anaesthesia in childbirth to be a breach of medical ethics. He described this use as ‘the act of a coward’ and said that if a woman insisted on the use of chloroform to alleviate her labour pains she must be told that she was in no fit state to make decisions. There were also clergymen who argued that the use of anaesthetics was prohibited by the Bible, which states that ‘in sorrow shall thy bring forward children’. A noted pioneer of anaesthesia, Sir James Simpson, responded humorously that on the occasion of the first recorded operation—the removal of a rib—the Lord had caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, proof of his support for anaesthesia. In his defence of the use of chloroform, Dr Simpson noted that some churchmen had also spoken against optical glasses and spectacles as ‘offsprings of man’s wicked mind’.

It took Queen Victoria’s use of chloroform for the births of her eighth and ninth children for the controversy to end. She gave its use respectability and described it as ‘that blessed chloroform’. Nowadays we wonder what all the fuss and arguments back then about anaesthesia in childbirth were all about. The point is that all through history we can find examples of resistance and opposition to new medical technologies which have significantly enhanced the quality of human life.

When heart transplants were being pioneered, there was opposition among some who claimed that they were unethical. Dr Christiaan Barnard is most often associated with pioneering heart transplants, as is American doctor Norman Shumway, who died earlier this year. Dr Shumway’s research work at Stanford University enabled post-surgical deaths to be reduced. He persevered at a time when there was significant controversy over legal issues such as what constituted brain death among potential donors. Today such operations, if not quite routine, are non-controversial, and thousands of lives have been saved or improved.

History is full of such examples. Debate has raged about many other medical techniques, from blood transfusions through to IVF. There are some who remain opposed to the use of blood transfusions on ethical grounds and others who continue to mount arguments against the ethics of IVF. And yet I am sure all of us know families who have benefited enormously from IVF and have found much happiness from it.

The legislation before us today could pave the way for cures to be researched for diabetes, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, heart disease, motor neurone disease, spinal cord injuries and many other conditions. How can we stand in the way of such advances? To the people who are spouting the ethics of the day, can I say that none of the other medical research work would have even been undertaken, let alone introduced, in the past. I believe we cannot and should not stand in the way of these sorts of advances.

Last sitting week we had children with diabetes in this place. We looked at the research that might be undertaken to help cure some of the diseases and money that the government will be putting into some of that research. Unfortunately, that research will be limited unless we can pass this sort of technology so that we can look at effectively curing juvenile diabetes. I think it is beholden on all of us to remember what those kids are suffering and to do all that we can to try and improve their lives.

I have received many letters and emails about this issue and have read them all carefully. People have talked about the numerous letters and emails that they have received. From across the country, I can confidently say, because I have saved them all personally, that I have received less than 100 such emails and letters and probably only half a dozen that have come from my electorate—some in support and some in opposition.

As I said, I have weighed the arguments on both sides and have come to the conclusion that I must support this bill. I know that my decision will not be welcomed by some. But I fervently believe that when we are elected as members we must be willing to stand up and be counted for what we believe in. I cannot in all conscience stand by and oppose this bill and in doing so put hurdles in the way of medical research which would benefit so many so significantly. I say that as a Christian, someone who believes in the Christian way of life and beliefs. I believe that we cannot stand in the way of treating these sorts of diseases and finding cures.

Before I finish I would like to say a few things about some of the myths being put forward by those who oppose this bill. Some have argued that this bill would allow human cloning and the development of animal-human hybrids. Anyone who has read the legislation knows that this is a pure fabrication and it is not going to occur. I am quite disgusted that, in what is supposed to be an honest debate on the value of ethics, people would put forward suggestions that are clearly not true purely to try and prevent the passage of the bill. I reject these arguments. They are just misleading and dangerous.

This bill is not about the merits or ethical dimensions of embryonic stem cell research. We had that debate in 2002. The issue we face now is the use of therapeutically cloned or somatic cell nuclear transfer embryos as an additional source for research. Other countries are already using these research techniques. I was in Scotland earlier this year and I talked to their people about what we were looking at introducing in this parliament. They could not understand what the debate was all about. They lead the world in this sort of technology and they believe that it has great beneficial prospects for the future. I do not believe that we should deny Australians the potential opportunities that could arise from the research to be permitted by this bill.

I would like to acknowledge the contributions made in the development of this bill by Senators Patterson, Webber and Stott Despoja and by the member for Moore, Dr Mal Washer. All of these people have been instrumental in enabling us to have this bill debated today. Without their commitment this bill would not have reached the House. I also want to recognise the many contributions made by other colleagues in the House. In this debate we have heard many members tell of their personal and family experiences with regard to medical conditions for which cures may be offered by this bill. Many of their accounts have been heart-rending and I have been saddened to hear of their anguish. I firmly believe that we cannot turn our backs on the potential for all Australians to benefit from research which would be enabled by this bill.

With regard to the proposed Ferguson—the member for Bass—amendment, I observed discussions with my friend and colleague the member for Moore, who referred to the ethical guidelines covering the use of human tissue for biometrical research in Australia. He pointed out that in October 1983 the National Health and Medical Research Council introduced guidelines covering the use of foetal tissue for biometrical research in Australia. These guidelines ensure:

(i) there is distinct separation between the patient and the research group in both the decision-making process and the proximity of the research to the clinical ward; and (ii) parental consent is obtained for the use of the tissue. These guidelines stipulate that the human fetal tissue used must be from terminations of pregnancy at less than 20 weeks’ gestation and where the weight of the fetus is less than 400 g.

So we are not talking about late-term abortion foetal material being used for this research. That is blatantly untrue. We should remember that when we are looking at amendments being moved in the consideration in detail stage. As I said before, we have heard much debate on this particular bill. I believe it needs to be passed in its unamended form. We do not need to send it back to the Senate for consideration of amendments. I urge honourable members in this place to support its passage.

See this speech in context